Small Group Research 2006 Chang 327 50

7/28/2019 Small Group Research 2006 Chang 327 50

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/small-group-research-2006-chang-327-50 1/25

http://sgr.sagepub.com/ Small Group Research

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/327

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/10464964062905642006 37: 327Small Group Research

Artemis Chang, Julie Duck and Prashant BordiaUnderstanding the Multidimensionality of Group Development

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Small Group Research Additional services and information for

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/327.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 17, 2006Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 2, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/





http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/327.refs.html



http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/327.full.pdf





http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/327.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepublications.com/





Understanding theMultidimensionalityof Group DevelopmentArtemis ChangQueensland University of Technology

Julie Duck

University of Queensland

Prashant BordiaUniversity of South Australia

This article presents a three-dimensional definition space of the group devel-

opment literature that differentiates group development models on three

dimensions: content, population, and path dependency. The multidimen-

sional conceptualization structures and integrates the vast group development

literature, enabling direct comparison of competing theories. The utility of

this definition space is demonstrated by using the relative positioning of two

seemingly competing group development models—the punctuated equilib-

rium model and the integrative model—to demonstrate their complementar-

ity. The authors also show how organizational researchers and practitioners

can use the three-dimensional definition space to select an appropriate theo-

retical model for the group or group process with which they are working.

Keywords: group development; group processes; time; theory

Group development research originated in the early 1950s, when both

Bales (1950, 1953) and Bion (1948a, 1948b, 1961) observed similar

basic issues facing different types of small groups and speculated about the

temporal order in which these were resolved by group members. Interest in

group development remained strong into the 1970s, producing method-

ological refinements and new theories (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951;Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Borgatta & Bales, 1953; Duphy, 1968; Heinicke

Small Group Research

Volume 37 Number 4

August 2006 327-350

© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/1046496406290564

http://sgr.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

327

Authors’Note: We would like to thank Mark Griffin, Boris Kabanoff, Andrew White, and Jan

Nixon for their help at various stages of this article.








& Bales, 1953; Lundgren & Knight, 1978; Mabry, 1975; Mann, Gibbard, &

Hartman, 1967; Mills, 1964; Schutz, 1958; Slater, 1966; Stock & Thelen,

1958; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Through the years, severalattempts were made to summarize the vast group development literature,

and by the late 70s, it was well recognized that common developmental

trends can be observed across a wide range of groups (e.g., Braaten, 1974;

Cissna, 1984; Hare, 1973; Lacoursiere, 1980; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman &

Jensen, 1977).

Despite the vast differences in methodological approaches and empirical

findings, group development theories prior to the 1980s were largely “linear”

in nature. That is, these models described developmental changes as small,gradual, and path dependent. They assumed that random events early in the

evolution of an innovation get “locked in” forever, that is, that history matters.

These linear models were challenged in the late 1980s when more studies of

task-oriented groups (including decision-making groups, laboratory problem-

solving groups, naturally occurring work groups, and organizational project

teams) became prevalent (e.g., Gersick, 1988; Insko, Bilmore, Drenana,

Lipsitz, & Moehle, 1983; Insko, Thibaut, Moehle, Wilson, & Diamond, 1980;

Katz, 1982; Obert, 1983; Poole, 1983a, 1983b; Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b).The “nonlinear” models emerged out of this new group development litera-

ture (e.g., Gersick, 1988; McGrath, 1991; Poole, 1983a, 1983b), which

emphasized the importance of contextual factors in influencing a group’s

developmental path and described multiple alternative developmental pat-

terns rather than one common group development trend.

As the earlier linear developmental models were largely developed

based predominantly on research conducted with therapy, training, and self-

analytic groups (Tuckman, 1965), reviewers (Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo &

Shea, 1992; Moreland & Levine, 1988) often concluded that earlier linear

models were not applicable to organizational work groups, especially after

Gersick’s (1988, 1989) publication of the “punctuated equilibrium model.”

For example, Guzzo and Shea (1992) suggested that “Gersick’s research is

a challenge to traditional views of group development and it has the merit

of being empirically demonstrated in different settings” (p. 287). Bettenhausen

(1991) reported that

challenging the notion that groups accomplish their work by progressing

through a series of stage(s), Gersick (1988, 1989) proposed and found sup-

port for a punctuated equilibrium model in which groups alternate between

periods of inertia and revolution triggered primarily by their members’

awareness of time and deadlines. (p. 352)

328 Small Group Research








This article presents a three-dimensional definition space of group devel-

opment that integrates linear and nonlinear models of group development.

This definition space overcomes the limitation of the current one-dimensional(i.e., path dependency) categorization of group development models and

provides a simple and comprehensive framework for understanding the vast

group development literature. Various theoretical models of group develop-

ment will be positioned in the definition space to demonstrate the utility of

this framework. Furthermore, this framework can enable direct comparison

between competing models of group development and guide researchers’

and practitioners’ selection of appropriate models.

Definition of Group Development

There have been more than 100 so-called group development theories

through the years (Hill & Gruner, 1973). Despite the popularity of the

research topic, the term group development is rarely defined. Throughout

the literature, there seems to be an assumption that there is a shared under-

standing of what the term means. But what exactly is group development?What are developmental stages, trends, and phases? What aspects of a group

develop? For group development researchers, development can mean any-

thing from the growth of group solidarity or cohesiveness, changes in the

relationship toward the leader, changes in the relationship among group

members, changes in the primary concerns of group members, and changes

in task orientation and output. It might also involve questions of why the

group came together initially and why it ceased being a group.

To develop a comprehensive understanding of the group development

literature, we conducted a literature search using combinations of the key

words group process(es), time, group development , temporal, changes, and

longitudinal. We also referred to earlier reviews of group development

theories (e.g., Braaten, 1974; Cissna, 1984; Hare, 1973; Lacoursiere, 1980;

Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jesen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994) to ensure a com-

prehensive coverage of the literature.

The literature search located hundreds of group development models, echo-

ing Moreland and Levine’s (1988) observation that “there are a great many the-

ories of group development; nearly everyone who does research on this topic(and some who do not) eventually theorizes about it” (p. 155). To navigate this

chaotic and vast definition space of group development, we constructed the

following questions to help identify the focal argument of each model and

how it can be used to understand developmental patterns of work teams.

Chang et al. / Multidimensionality of Group Development 329








These questions are (a) Is the word development meant to refer to

changes over time in one specific aspect of the group or in the overall

picture of the group? (b) Is the observed pattern of development meant

to be generalized to a specific kind of group or to groups of all kinds? and

(c) Does the word development imply path-dependent changes toward an

optimal state or does it imply only that change occurs over time? The fol-

lowing discussion illustrates that each of these three questions sorts groupdevelopment theories along a continuum, forming the three axes of the

definition space of group development, termed the content, population, and

path dependency axes (based on questions a, b, and c above, respectively;

see Figure 1). Anything that falls within this definition space can be defined


Figure 1

Definition Space of Group Development

P a t h D e p e n d e n t

Generalized to All

Population

Population Specific

N o n - P a t h D e p e n d e n t

P a t h D

e p e n d e n c y

Wheelan

Bales

ContentComprehensiveSpecific

Poole

Gersick

Tuckman

Mc Grath

Note: Content refers to whether the word development refers to temporal changes in one specific

aspect of the group or in the overall picture of the group. Population refers to whether the

observed pattern of development is restricted to a specific kind of group or generalized to groups

of all kinds. Path dependency refers to whether the word development implies path-dependent

changes toward a better state or whether it merely describes changes that occur over time.








as group development, resulting in a complex and confusing phenomenon

termed group development.

Axis 1: Content

The first axis refers to the question of whether the word development is

meant to refer to temporal changes in one specific aspect of the group or in

the overall picture of the group. This question sorts group development

research on a continuum ranging from the specific to a more general or

comprehensive perspective. At the specific end of the continuum, there is a

considerable body of literature dealing with specific aspects of a group duringthe course of its life. For example, Poole’s (1983a, 1983b; Poole & Roth,

1989a, 1989b) contingency theory proposes that groups can follow multiple

paths of decision making depending on the contingent internal and external

factors such as group structure and work task variables. Gersick’s (1988,

1989) punctuated equilibrium model examines temporal changes in a group’s

pacing and time awareness activities and its task-oriented behaviors. These

models describe specific aspects of a group’s development and make no

attempt at a comprehensive picture of that development, which includestemporal changes in a wide range of processes such as leadership, structure,

decision making, relationship maintenance, and so on.

At the comprehensive end of this continuum, the word development is

used with an eye toward a more comprehensive picture of group develop-

ment. For example, Tuckman’s (1965, Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) model

proposes that groups progress through five generic stages of orientation,

conflict, cohesion, performing, and termination. These stages are also

known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Wheelan’s

(1994) integrative model asserts that groups progress through developmental

stages of inclusion and dependency, fight and counterdependency, trust,

work, and termination. Both models describe generic developmental stages

observed in groups over time and describe changes in a variety of

processes, such as structure, communication, norms, leadership, trust, and

work performance.

Axis 2: PopulationIs the observed pattern of development meant to be generalized to a

specific kind of group or to groups of all kinds? This question sorts group

development theories into another continuum ranging from population

specific to generalized to all. At the population specific end of this continuum,









group development models aim to describe the developmental pattern of a

specific kind of group such as problem-solving groups (Bales & Strodtbeck,

1951), decision-making groups (Poole, 1983a, 1983b), and project teamswith definite deadlines (Gersick, 1988, 1989). At the generalized to all end

of this continuum, theorists attempt to describe general developmental pat-

terns across different types of groups, such as therapy, training, laboratory,

and work groups (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan,

1994). Theories at either end of this continuum can belong to either end of

Axis 1 (the content continuum). That is, both theories of specific kinds of

groups or theories of all kinds of groups can describe changes in one specific

aspect of a group over time or provide a comprehensive picture of develop-ment over time.

Axis 3: Path Dependency

Does the word development imply path-dependent (i.e., history matters)

changes toward a better state, or does it merely describe changes that occur

over time? Again, this question sorts group development research on a con-

tinuum, ranging from path dependent to non-path dependent . At the pathdependent end of this continuum, group development refers a normative

pattern of changes which implies that a group matures over time (e.g.,

Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Lacoursiere, 1980; Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan,

1994). From this point of view, maturity for the group means something

analogous to maturity for a person. That is, groups, like people, undergo

stages of development, and by achieving the milestones of a developmental

stage, a group progresses to a more mature stage of development in which

the group can be more productive and group members more satisfied; thus,

history matters. For example, Wheelan’s (1994) integrative model argues

that once groups resolve early developmental issues such as dependency

and counterdependency, groups will be able to operate under more effective

working conditions such as high level of trust and productive work struc-

ture and processes.

At the non-path dependent end of this continuum, group development

research that examines common patterns of change that occur over time.

However, no developmental stage or phase is considered more advanced than

any other stage or phase. For those who describe development as patterns of behaviors rather than stages or phases, no particular pattern of behavior is

considered superior to other patterns of behavior. Instead, these models focus

on the contingent factors that lead to alternative developmental patterns. In

other words, group development is conceptualized as temporal change as a









reaction to a group’s internal and external environment rather than a normative

pattern that all groups progress through over time. For example, McGrath’s

(1991) time, interaction, and performance (TIP) model argues that groups cantake alternative paths between the different stages of goal choice, mean

choice, policy choice, and goal attainment depending on the nature of the

assigned task, the expertise of the composing members, and the contextual

environment. Poole’s (1983a, 1983b; Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b) contin-

gency theory proposes that groups can undergo different “decision-making”

paths depending on the contingent internal and external factors, such as group

structure and work task variables.

Again, this continuum can interact with the previous two continuums toform a three-dimensional definition space. The previous two continua form

a two-dimensional (Content × Population) plane. Group development

research that falls at any point on this plane can describe either path depen-

dent or non-path dependent development patterns, thus creating the Content ×

Population × Path Dependency definition space of group development. This

definition space provides a comprehensive coverage of the current group

development literature. Table 1 illustrates how various group development

models can be positioned in the definition space.In sum, there are vast differences among the various researchers’ defin-

itions of group development, and the above three continuum form the axes

of the definition space for the term group development . Research on any

temporal changes that fall within this definition space have been classified

as group development research, resulting in apparent differences in the

underlying assumptions of various group development models. This three-

dimensional definition space highlights the limitations of the current one-

dimensional categorization of group development models. The current

literature categorizes group development theories on only the path-dependency

dimension in the three-dimensional definition space. Researchers have clas-

sified the group development theories into (a) linear models, (b) pendular

models, and (c) nonsequential models (Chidambaram, Bostrom, & Wynne,

1991; Mennecke, Hoffer, & Wynne, 1992). Both linear and pendular

models conceptualize group development as a predictable pattern of

changes over time. Although linear models define development as a group’s

gradual and incremental progress through a logical sequence of stages over

time (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; Wheelan, 1994), pendular models argue thatresolution of any focal issues within groups is only temporary and that var-

ious issues, problems, or approaches to problems recur within a group’s life

cycle (e.g., Bion, 1961; Worchel, 1994). Linear and pendular models dom-

inated the group development literature up until the 1980s. Although the


(text continues on p. 337)








334

T a b l e 1

L i s t o f G

r o u p D e v e l o p m e n t M o d e l s a n d T h e i r P o s i t i o n s i n t h e D e f i n i t i o n S p a c e o f G r o u p D e v e l o p m e n

t

A u t h o r ( s ) a n d

T y p e s o f G r o u p s F r o m

F o c u s o f t h e M o d

e l

W h i c h t h e M o d e l i s D

e r i v e d

C o n t e n t

P o p u l a t i o n

P a t h D e p e n d e n c y

L i n e a r m o d e l s

B a l e s a n d S t r o b e c k

L a b o r a t o r y p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g

S p e c i f i c — d e s c r i b e s p

h a s e s

O n e t y p e — a p p l y t o p r o b l e m - P a t h d e p e n d e n t —

( 1 9 5 1 ) p h a s e s o f

g r o u p s

o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g

s o l v i n g g r o u p s u n d e r

g r o u p s p r o g r e s s t h r o u g h

p r o b l e m s o l v i n g

f u l l - f l e d g e d c o n d i t i o n

t h e t h r e e p h a s e s i n o r d e r ,

b u t n o o n e p h a s e i s

s u p e r i o r t o t h e o t h e r s

H e i n i c k e a n d

L a b o r a t o r y p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g

C o m p r e h e n s i v e — c h a

n g e s

I n t e r m e d i a t e

P a t h d e p e n d e n t

B a l e s ( 1 9 5 3 )

g r o u p s ( s t u d e n t s )

i n s t r u c t u r e c o n s e n

s u s

d e v e l o p m e n t a l

t r e n d s o f s m

a l l

g r o u p s

L a c o u r s i e r e ( 1 9 8 0 )

T h e r a p y , t a s k o r i e n t e d

,

C o m p r e h e n s i v e

A l l g r o u p s


i n t r a p e r s o n a

l

t r a i n i n g , c o m m i t t e e

,

a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l

s e l f - a n a l y t i c g r o u p s

r e a c t i o n s a n d

e m o t i o n s

M a n n , G i b b a r t , a n d

T r a i n i n g g r o u p s ( s t u d e n t


A l l g r o u p s


H a r t m a n ( 1 9

6 7 )

g r o u p s i n t h e c o u r s e ,

m e m b e r - t o - l e a d e r

n

= 4 )

r e l a t i o n s h i p








335

T u c k m a n ( 1 9 6 5 )

T r a i n i n g , t h e r a p y n a t u

r a l


A l l g r o u p s b u t a p p l i c

a b i l i t y


a n d T u c k m a

n

o r l a b o r a t o r y

t o n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r

i n g

a n d J e n s e n

g r o u p s i s n o t w a r r a n t e d

( 1 9 7 7 ) c h a n g e s

i n g r o u p p r o

c e s s

a n d s t r u c t u r e

W h e e l a n ( 1 9 9 4 )

W o r k g r o u p s t h e r a p y


A l l g r o u p s


c h a n g e s i n g

r o u p

t r a i n i n g

p r o c e s s a n d

s t r u c t u r e

C y c l i c m o d e l

B i o n ( 1 9 6 1 ) w o r k

T h e r a p y g r o u p s


P o p u l a t i o n s p e c i f i c —

P a t h d e p e n d e n t a n d

c y c l i c

a n d e m o t i o n

a l i t y

t h e r a p y g r o u p s

i n g r o u p s

B a l e s ( 1 9 5 3 )

L a b o r a t o r y g r o u p s


S o m e t y p e s o f g r o u p s —


c y c l i c

t a s k - o r i e n t e d

( l e a d e r l e s s

m a i n l y p r o b l e m - s o

l v i n g

a c t i v i t i e s d r i v e

d i s c u s s i o n s t u d e n t

g r o u p s

p o s i t i v e o r

g r o u p s )

n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n s

W o r c h e l ( 1 9 9 4

)

l a b g r o u p s ,

S p e c i f i c — g r o u p

G e n e r a l i z e d t o a l l


c y c l i c

s o c i a l g r o u p s

c o h e s i v e n e s s , m e m

b e r s ’

t y p e s o f g r o u p s

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h

t h e

g r o u p , a n d s e l f - a w a r e n e s s

( c o n t i n u e d )








336

T a b l e 1 ( c o n t i n u e d )

A u t h o r ( s ) a n d

T y p e s o f G r o u p s F r o m

F o c u s o f t h e M o d

e l

W h i c h t h e M o d e l i s D

e r i v e d

C o n t e n t

P o p u l a t i o n

P a t h D e p e n d e n c y

N o n s e q u e n t i a l m o d e l s

G e r s i c k ( 1 9 8 8 )

W o r k g r o u p s w i t h

S p e c i f i c — a g r o u p ’ s

O n e t y p e o f g r o u p — p r o j e c t

N o n - p a t h d e p e n d e n t

t a s k - r e l a t e d ,

l i m i t e d l i f e s p a n

t i m e - m a n a g e m e n t

t e a m s w i t h a d e f i n

i t e

e s p e c i a l l y p a c i n g

s t r a t e g i e s a n d t a s k - r e l a t e d

d e a d l i n e

a c t i v i t i e s

a c t i v i t i e s ( 1 9 8 9 )

M c G r a t h ( 1 9 9 1 )

W o r k g r o u p s

C o m p r e h e n s i v e — t h r e e

T o w a r d t h e g e n e r a l i z

e d t o


m u l t i p l e

f u n c t i o n a l i t i e s t h a t

a l l e n d b u t n o t a s g e n e r a l

f u n c t i o n a l i t i e s o f

p a r a l l e l o n e a n o t h e

r

a s T u c k m a n — a p p l y i n g t o

a g r o u p , i n c l u d i n g

a l l w o r k g r o u p s , a n d c a n

a g r o u p ’ s

b e m o d i f i e d t o a p p

l y t o

w e l l - b e i n g ,

m o s t g r o u p s

m e m b e r s u p

p o r t ,

a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y

f u n c t i o n s

P o o l e ( 1 9 8 3 a b ,

D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u

p s

S p e c i f i c — a g r o u p ’ s

I n t e r m e d i a t e — a l l d e c i s i o n -


1 9 8 9 a b ) d e c

i s i o n -

d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

m a k i n g g r o u p s

m a k i n g p a t h

s

a c t i v i t i e s








two types of models describe different patterns of progression over time,

they share the assumption that there is progress in a group’s handling of

development issues (i.e., path dependence). Through the years, several attemptshave been made to review the literature on group development (Braaten,

1974; Cissna, 1984; Hare, 1973; Lacoursiere, 1980; Tuckman, 1965), and

there has been little negative evidence that challenges the linear develop-

mental patterns of small groups. Based on studies of therapy, training, and

self-analytic groups, there is substantial evidence that groups display gen-

eral linear or cyclic developmental trends regardless of the characteristics

of the group.

Nonsequential models emerged in the 1980s when studies of task-oriented groups (including decision-making groups, laboratory problem-

solving groups, naturally occurring work groups, and organizational project

teams) became more prevalent (e.g., Gersick, 1988; Insko et al., 1980,

1983; Katz, 1982; Obert, 1983; Poole, 1983a, 1983b; Poole & Roth, 1989a,

1989b). These models presented developmental patterns that appeared to

differ dramatically from the linear and cyclic patterns. TIP (McGrath,

1991), the contingency theory (Poole, 1983a, 1983b; Poole & Roth, 1989a,

1989b), and the punctuated equilibrium model (Gersick, 1988) are all clas-sified as nonsequential models. Limited by the one-dimensional catego-

rization, the organizational behavior literature has viewed nonsequential

models as a competing paradigm to the linear and cyclic development

models. Thus, the organizational behavior literature has questioned the

application of the traditional group development literature (linear and

pendular models) to work groups (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo &

Shea, 1992).

The traditional, one-dimensional categorization of group development

models has neglected the fact that group development models vary in their

content and population as well. A close examination of the three-dimensional

definition space indicated that linear group development models are derived

from a wide range of groups, including therapy, training, laboratory, and

naturally occurring work groups. There is more variation among linear

models in terms of their positions in the definition space than among the

nonsequential models, nevertheless linear models predominantly define

group development at the comprehensive-generalized to all- path dependent

corner of the definition space. That is, a linear developmental pattern ismore likely to be found when the researcher is interested in providing a

comprehensive picture of the general developmental pattern of groups of all

types. Most linear models employ the term group development with a path-

dependent connotation. For example, Tuckman’s (1965), Lacoursiere’s (1980),









and Wheelan’s (1994) models are all at the comprehensive-generalized to

all- path dependent corner of the definition space.

On the other hand, the nonsequential models (i.e., Gersick, 1988, 1989;McGrath, 1991; Poole, 1989a, 1989b) define the term group development

at the content specific-population specific-non-path dependent corner of the

definition space, and there is less variation in their positions within the def-

inition space. That is, nonsequential developmental patterns are observed

mostly when a group development model describes temporal changes in

only the task-related aspects of task-oriented groups. These models usually

only apply to task-oriented groups, and the term group development is

employed without the path-dependent connotation. Thus, it is inappropriateto view linear and nonsequential categories as mutually exclusive cate-

gories as the two types of models focus on different dimensionalities of

temporal change in groups for different types of groups. Furthermore, it is

misleading to conclude that traditional stage models do not apply to work

groups unless their lack of application can be demonstrated empirically.

Many stage models are designed to describe common developmental pat-

terns shared by all types of groups, including organizational work groups.

Another common misunderstanding in the organizational literature isthat the validity of stage models is questionable because clearly defined

“stages” (“a presumably natural or nonarbitrary division of a changing

process”; English & English, 1958, p. 520) proposed by these models are

not always found in group research (Arrow, 1997; Bettenhausen, 1991;

Gersick, 1988, 1989; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Seers & Woodruf, 1997).

However, most models used the term developmental stages to describe

clusters of behaviors that most groups display at various points of their

lifespan, which can probably be better captured by the term developmental

phase (“a recurrent state in something that exhibits a series of changes”;

English & English, 1958, p. 386) or trend (“the direction manifested in a

series of events; a dynamic tendency or inclination to behave in a given way

or in a certain direction”; English & English, 1958, p. 564).

For example, Wheelan’s (1994) five stages were defined based on behav-

iors characteristic of a group dealing with a particular developmental issue,

such as dependency. Groups at the dependency stage tend to follow the

leader’s suggestion, and members at this stage tend not to challenge the dom-

inant point of view in the group. However, this is not to say that groups donot engage in any other activities during this stage. Work definitely does

occur at this stage, as it is the main reason for the group’s existence. Conflicts

might occur between group members or subgroups, but the model argues that

groups at the dependency stage are less likely to express their conflicts openly









because of safety concerns. When transition from the dependency stage to the

counterdependency stage occurs, conflicts between group members or sub-

groups become the group’s most predominant behaviors. That is, a group atthe counterdependency stage spends a large proportion of its time and energy

on member conflicts and counterdependency issues. Note that the transition

from dependency to counterdependency and conflict does not occur immedi-

ately. Groups do not switch all at once from having no conflict to having a

great deal of conflict. Instead, the process is such that group members grad-

ually experience more differences in opinion. Furthermore, group members

also become increasingly more comfortable with expressing opinions that

differ from the group’s dominant point of view. It is when conflicts and coun-terdependency become the predominant behavior that the group is classified

as moving into the counterdependency stage. Thus, the model does not pro-

pose clear boundaries between different developmental stages. Rather, each

developmental stage is defined by a cluster of behaviors with which the group

is most occupied at a particular point in time.

Using the Definition Space

The three-dimensional definition space proposed here overcomes the

limitations of the current one-dimensional understanding of group develop-

ment and provides a simple but comprehensive framework for comparing

competing models of group development (Figure 1, Table 1). The follow-

ing discussion will illustrate the utility of this definition space by compar-

ing Gersick’s (1989) punctuated equilibrium model with Wheelan’s (1994)

integrative model of group development. Although most researchers see

these as competing models (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Shea,

1992), the use of the definition space clarifies this misconception and illus-

trates the complementary nature of these two models.

An Empirical Illustration

Figure 1 demonstrates the respective position of the two models in the

definition space of group development. First, in terms of content, the punc-

tuated equilibrium model describes changes in the way a group works onits tasks over time (specific), whereas the integrative model describes the

overall developmental pattern of a group over time (comprehensive),

including dimensions such as leadership, decision making, norms, and social

relationships. This difference in content is reflected in the difference in the









two coding systems (see Table 2 for the coding categories and examples).

Gersick’s (1989) observational system focused on

ideas and decisions that gave the product its basic shape or that would be the

fundamental choices in a decision tree if the finished product were to be dia-

grammed . . . and points where milestone ideas were first proposed, whether or

not they were accepted at that time. (p. 14)

The integrative model, on the other hand, uses the group development

observation system (GDOS), which captures temporal changes in groups’

structures and processes in both socioemotional and task-related dimen-sions (see Table 2). Each statement is identified by its speaker, target, loca-

tion in time, and functional role in a group’s activities, thus portraying a

comprehensive picture of the changes in the central theme of a group’s

interaction over time. For example, the coded transcript in the bottom section

of Table 3 demonstrates the integrative model’s focus on different group

processes such as work, flight (fl; avoidance of intimacy or work), and pair-

ing (p; relationship building). The first theme abstracted in the top section

of Table 3 demonstrates how the same group interaction was coded by thepunctuated equilibrium model as a process of the group examining its

resources. Because the punctuated equilibrium model focuses on the process

of the group’s approach to its work, statements that represent relationship

maintenance or avoidance of intimacy are less relevant.

On the other hand, GDOS accounts for only the frequency of groups’

various activities but not the content meaning of the acts. This means that

despite the fact that the integrative model attempts to make predictions

about the path dependency and quantity of work done at each developmen-

tal stage, its coding system only allows the observation of the amount of

time devoted to work at each developmental stage. By contrast, the punctu-

ated equilibrium model captures how work is done and the amount of atten-

tion that a group pays to its pacing activities at different phases. Although

both the punctuated equilibrium model and the integrative model describe

temporal changes in the work of the group, the two coding systems yield

different information about a group’s task activities.

Second, in terms of population, the punctuated equilibrium model describes

developmental patterns that apply only to “groups that have some leeway tomodify their work processes and must orient themselves to a time limit”

(Gersick, 1988, p. 36). The integrative model is designed to describe develop-

mental patterns of all types of groups (e.g., intensive care unit nurse teams—

Wheelan & Burchill, 1999; executive teams—Buzaglo & Wheelan, 1999;









faculty member groups—Wheelan & Tilin, 1999; financial services teams and

teams working in a hotel—Wheelan, Murphy, Tsumura, & Kline, 1998).

Finally, in terms of path dependency, the punctuated equilibrium model

assumes no qualitative differences between a group’s task activities in the firstand second phases, whereas the integrative model assumes that groups at a later

developmental stage should perform better in all aspects of their functioning.

In summary, the punctuated equilibrium model is at the specific-population

specific-non-path dependent corner of the definition space, whereas the


Table 2

Examples of Coded Statements and Meeting Maps

Letter Code Type of Statement Examples

Punctuated equilibrium

model

Action statements

P Process Why don’t we just toss out some ideas

that we could get into the commercial.

T Time pacing We have got 20 minutes left!

R Resources That’s $200 per thing, so we basically

requirements have the choice of one.Statements about the

final product

#c Content A rich movie star gets into a car . . .

chauffeur says “What terminal, sir?”

#d Details Should the brakes slam or not? . . .

They should.

#f Format What if we had a conversation between

two people . . . . /You can have two

different points of view, the budget

point of view and the . . . .#p Procedure I’ll do the second person. Can anyone

do that noise? “eerrrr”

Integrated model

D Dependency What do you think we should do?

CD Counterdependency I don’t think that is a good idea.

Why don’t we try my idea first?

FI Fight That is a stupid idea.

FL Flight Did anyone watch the movie on SBS

last night?

P Pairing Good work, John!CP Counterpairing Can we talk about the commercial

instead?

W Work Why don’t we start writing this down.









Table 3

Example of the Original Transcript Coded by the Group

Development Observational System and a Meeting MapConstructed Based on Gersick’s Coding System

Meeting map Original transcript coded by the group development

observational system

0:00-3:00 Examinedresources, looking atthe tapes available.

0:30-1:30 Proposedcontent. One persontalked about the movieCrazy People.Wanted to use the idea

shown in the movie:“Millions of peopleget killed every yearbut we have the fewestnumber.” The group

then evaluated theproposed content—“not original.”

1:30-4:20 Listened toall the music tapes,commented on themusic, and proposedideas that go with the

music. “This iscaptain someone”;“This is like an Asianmusic”; “But thatdoesn’t make Asiansound exciting, it just

makes it soundrelaxing”; “We’vealso got to mention thecountry I guess.”

B These are all the music tapes (w).A tapes (w)C I wonder what the music is? (w)B while you are sleeping (w), silk road of theme (w), pearl

shells (w), which I never heard of (fl), while you aresleeping (w), is that the movie? (fl)A hm (fl)C yes (w)B we should use that one (w)D . . . ( u )

A I am not going to play it (w), I am just going to . . . (w)D OK (w)E has any one seen crazy people (fl)D pardon (u)E crazy people (fl), the movie (fl)

B no (answering B) (fl), that’s good (referring to the taperecorder)(w)

C ok so (w), so we got to basically advertise (w)E they did this thing on the movie (w) where there like was

this advertising guy (w), and you know like how they

usually say those safety stuff (w),1:00 E and he goes millions people got killed every year but we

have the fewest number (w), like people get killed (w)D oh, really (p)E they just do all this crazy thing (fl) and people really like it

(fl), cause he just like do all these crazy commercials (w)B that’s good though (w)E but all these crazy people helps him to make up these ideas

(fl), but it’s not original (w), but its creative (w)C but they wouldn’t know whether it’s not original (w) unless

they have seen it (w)

D yeah (w), but they have the tape (w)E but . . . (u)015 oh yeah (w)E elevating music (playing music tape 1) (w)B it’s like airplane music when you land (w)

A oh. Yeah (w)D or when you are taking off (w)A yeah (p), it’s true(w)E what’s that (the music) (w)

(continued)








integrative model is at the comprehensive-generalized to all-path dependent corner. The distance between the two models in the definition space high-

lights the noncomparative nature of the two models. Although the punctuated

equilibrium model is designed to describe changes in pacing and task-related

activities in project teams over time, the integrative model is designed to

describe a general developmental trend that can be observed across a wide

range of groups. This distinction between the two models is consistent with

Seers and Woodruff’s (1997) suggestion that researchers should distinguish

between the pacing activities from group development as a whole: “Pacingappears to be a task deadline-driven process, and group development appears

to involve social factors which can extend beyond task-required interactions”

(p. 184). It is also consistent with Seers and Woodruff’s argument that

Gersick’s (1988, 1989) model should be identified as a “group task progress”

model instead of as a “group development” model (p. 168).

Chang, Bordia, and Duck (2003) compared the punctuated equilibrium

model and the integrative model using simulated project teams in the labo-

ratory setting. Results of this study supported the proposed multidimen-

sionality of group development. Results showed that groups underwent

both punctuated equilibrium and linear path-dependent developmental pat-

terns, albeit on different dimensions. The punctuated equilibrium model

described changes in a group’s time awareness and pacing activities over

time and changes in a group’s task activities over time, whereas the inte-

grative model described changes in both a group’s task and socioemotional

activities. This pattern of results also supported the proposed positioning of

both models in the three-dimensional definition space of group develop-

ment. The punctuated equilibrium model is designed to describe changes intask activities and pacing behaviors of project teams with definite dead-

lines. The integrative model describes a common developmental trend

observed across a wide range of groups; thus, it is also applicable to project

teams working under time pressure.


Table 3 (continued)

Note: See Chang, Bordia, and Duck (2003, Table 1). The top section of the table illustrates a

5-minute sample segment of the meeting map describing changes in the central theme of a group’s

discussion over time. This map was constructed following guidelines provided by Gersick

(1989). The numbers in the top section represent time elapsed in minutes from project inception.

The bottom section of the table shows the transcript for only 2 minutes of the group’s interaction

because of space limitation. Letters in the right column identify group members. The coding of

each statement is in parentheses. The coding was done in the context of the purpose of the com-

munication and the nonverbal behaviors accompanying the communication.








Theoretical and Practical Implications

Groups are dynamic entities, and as such the results of any groupresearch or group intervention can vary depending not only on what is mea-

sured and how it is measured but also on when it is measured. Thus, when

working with groups, it is important to understand their temporal context.

The definition space can be used as a guideline for selecting appropriate

models of group development. The population dimension highlights the

applicability of the specific model to the groups that one is studying or

working with. The content dimension focuses on the specific dimension of

change in which one is interested. The path-dependency dimension distin-

guishes between different conceptualizations of group development. Models

that define development with a path-dependent connotation describe desir-

able group behaviors that lead to enhanced group effectiveness. This type

of model provides a framework for facilitating effective group processes.

On the other hand, models that do not assume the association between

development and path dependency (e.g., TIP and contingency theory) better

capture the interaction between a group and its environment.

For example, many organizations are now relying on project teams for the

development of innovative products. When working with project teams, onecould encounter a wide range of problems from running behind schedule, to

apathetic attitudes from group members, to conflicts between group members.

When designing effective strategies to work with these teams, one needs to

first understand the temporal context of the group. Using the population

dimension, one could select models specifically designed for project teams

(e.g., the punctuated equilibrium model) or models developed to apply to

groups in general (e.g., TIP, the integrative model). The population dimension

provides a wide range of applicable models for consideration; the contentdimension, on the other hand, helps to funnel down the selection of applica-

ble models. If the problem encountered is about the group’s difficulties in

meeting its deadline, then Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model will be an

important choice. The punctuated equilibrium model describes temporal

changes in pacing and time awareness activities, which are critical to timely

completion of group projects. Chang, Bordia, and Duck (2000) found that an

increase in pacing and time awareness over time is an important predictor of

timely project completion. Thus, group leaders or facilitators need to not onlydefine temporal milestones but also ensure that group members are constantly

made aware of their progress in their project timeline.

On the other hand, if the problem concerns conflicts among group

members, the integrative model provides the background understanding for









working with the group to resolve the conflicts. First, the model helps to

identify the problem as a common developmental issue for most groups.

This puts the problem into context and reduces the anxiety and guilt asso-ciated with delayed progress because of member conflict. Second, the

model can act as a framework to facilitate conflict resolution. Group

members can be assured that successful resolution of conflicts can lead to

promising outcomes of trust, structure, and effective work. Third, the model

can be used as a framework for understanding the different nature of group

conflicts. The model proposes that conflicts can occur throughout a group’s

lifespan, but the frequency is highest at Stage 2, when group members are

trying to establish independence from the group leader. At this stage, coali-tions are formed and conflicts tend to occur between subgroups that are for

and against the leader. When encountering conflicts of this type, it is impor-

tant to understand that group members require time to express their differ-

ences and to adjust themselves to work with others harmoniously. However,

it is also important to note that prolonged periods of conflict can detract a

group from its functional goals and seriously reduce its effectiveness. On

the other hand, conflicts can continue to occur even after a group moves

from Stage 2 into stages of trust, structure, and effective work. However,conflicts at this stage tend to be task focused and can in fact facilitate crit-

ical evaluation of group decisions (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).

Alternatively, the two models can be combined to plan the inception

meeting of a group project. The punctuated equilibrium model emphasizes

the importance of being prepared for the first meeting, as decisions made

at this meeting tend to stay with the group for the first half of their allocated

time. By contrast, the integrative model suggests that group members tend

to either blindly follow the leader’s suggestion or not have the courage to

express their disagreement. Combining the two models informs us that

group members are vulnerable at the initial stage of a project. Thus, external

pressure to perform, the group’s tendency to make quick decisions at the

first meeting, and group members’ dependency on their leader can result in

false consensus at this initial stage of a project. In addition, whatever deci-

sion is made at this stage will tend to stay with the group for a long period.

Thus, group leaders and facilitators should be cautious not to make deci-

sions hastily at the initial meeting. They need to ensure that group members

are given the opportunity to express their opinion in the initial meeting.Furthermore, it is a good idea to review these early decisions at a later date,

when decision making structure becomes clearer and when group members

feel more comfortable expressing differences in opinions.









The definition space can also assist researchers to place the group

phenomenon under investigation into a temporal context. This awareness of

a group’s temporal environment should start at the design phase of aresearch project. When reviewing the literature to develop a set of hypothe-

ses, a researcher should consider the following questions: (a) What type of

group is to be studied (i.e., population)? (b) What aspect of the group is to

be studied (i.e., content)? (c) Is the emphasis of the research project on the

progression of groups over time or the interaction between a group and its

environment (i.e., path dependency)? Answering these three questions

helps researchers to select the appropriate developmental model for their

research question, which informs them of the different outcomes they canexpect at different points of a group’s lifespan. Although not all research

questions need to be tested longitudinally, keeping a temporal perspective

will promote a more holistic understanding of the group phenomenon.

For example, when studying commitment, researchers need to under-

stand that group members’ level of identification with their work unit can

vary depending on their positioning in the developmental cycle. When

selecting a suitable model to inform us about temporal changes in commit-

ment, we need to first select the appropriate positioning of such a model inthe definition space. In terms of content, the model needs to provide a spe-

cific description of temporal changes in group commitment or group iden-

tity. Worchel’s (1994) cyclic model and Moreland and Levine’s (1988)

work on group socialization provide a useful framework for studying group

commitment or identity. On the other hand, models that describe an overall

picture of group development (i.e., comprehensive models) can also pro-

vide useful information because they describe temporal changes in group

cohesiveness and efficacy, which are important correlates of group identity.

In terms of population, we can choose group development models specif-

ically designed for work groups and group development models designed to

describe temporal changes in all types of groups. Thus, McGrath’s (1991)

TIP, Worchel’s (1994) cyclic model, and Wheelan’s (1994) integrative model

are all suitable models. Finally, in terms of path dependency, our selection

of the group development model depends on the focus of our study. If we are

interested in the impact of contingent factors, such as downsizing or organi-

zational change or commitment, then groups at the non-path dependent end

(e.g., TIP) will be more appropriate. Alternatively, theories at the path-dependent end better describe natural progression of group commitment or

identity over time in a stable environment.









Conclusion

The temporal context of a work group plays a significant role in shapingits behaviors. Although there is limited research specifically on develop-

mental patterns of work groups, there is a large body of literature on devel-

opmental patterns of small groups in general. The three-dimensional

definition space of group development provides a simple and structured

way of selecting the appropriate model(s) to assist understanding of the tem-

poral context of work groups. Furthermore, this definition space of group

development highlights the multidimensional nature of group development

phenomena, suggesting that researchers and practitioners need not limittheir choice to one model in particular nor assume the contradictory

nature of alternative developmental models. This article offers a theoret-

ical framework to guide empirical research on the temporal environment

of work groups. In doing so, it begins to unravel the black box of group

development.

References

Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75-85.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups.

Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, &

E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111-161). New York: Free

Press.

Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495.

Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations,

9, 415-437.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what

needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17 , 345-381.

Bion, W. R. (1948a). Experiences in groups (Part I). Human Relations, 1, 314-320.

Bion, W. R. (1948b). Experiences in groups (Part II). Human Relations, 1, 487-496.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.

Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Task and accumulation of experience as factors in the

interacting of small groups. Sociometry, 26 , 239-252.

Braaten, L. J. (1974). Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups. Interpersonal Development, 5, 112-129.

Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. A. (1999). Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case studies from

central America. Small Group Research, 30, 108-129.









Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2000, August). Time and work groups: Group development,

time management, and group effectiveness. Paper presented at the Academy of Management

Meeting, Toronto.Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: Toward

a new understanding of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 46 , 106-118

Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. E. (1991). A longitudinal study of impact of

group decision support systems on group development. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 7 , 7-25.

Cissna, K. N. (1984). Phases in group development: The negative evidence. Small Group

Behavior, 15, 3-32.

Duphy, D. C. (1968). Phases, roles, and myths in self-analytic groups. Applied Behavioural

Science, 4, 195-224.

English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans Green.

Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group devel-

opment. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 1-41.

Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of

Management Journal, 32, 274-309.

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organiza-

tions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-

tional psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Hare, A. P. (1973). Theories of group development and categories for interaction analysis.

Small Group Behavior, 4, 259-304.Heinicke, C., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Developmental trends in the structure of small groups.

Sociometry, 16, 7-38.

Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. (1973). A study of development in open and closed groups. Small

Group Behavior, 4, 355-381.

Insko, C. A., Bilmore, R., Drenana, S., Lipsitz, A., & Moehle, D. (1983). Trade versus expro-

priation in open groups: A comparison of two types of social power. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 18, 557-580.

Insko, C. A., Thibaut, J. W., Moehle, D., Wilson, M., & Diamond, W. D. (1980). Social eval-

uation and the emergence of leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,

431-448.Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.

Lacoursiere, R. B. (1980). The life cycle of groups: Group development stage theory. New

York: Human Science Press.

Lundgren, D. C., & Knight, D. J. (1978). Sequential stages of development in sensitivity train-

ing groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 204-222.

Mabry, E. A. (1975). Exploratory analysis of a developmental model for task-oriented small

groups. Human Communication Research, 2, 66-74.

Mann, R. D., Gibbard, G. S., & Hartman, J. J. (1967). Interpersonal styles and group devel-

opment: An analysis of the member-leader relationship. New York: John Wiley.McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small

Group Research, 22, 147-174.

Mennecke, B. E., Hoffer, J. A., & Wynne, B. E. (1992). The implications of group development

and history on group support system: Theory and Practice. Small Group Research, 4, 524-572.









Mills, T. M. (1964). Group transformation: An analysis of a learning group. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hill.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and social-ization in small groups. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New per-

spectives Sage focus editions, Vol. 91 (pp. 151-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Obert, S. L. (1983). Developmental patterns of organizational task groups: A preliminary

study. Human Relations, 36 , 37-52.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis

of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,

1-28.

Poole, M. S. (1983a). Decision development in small groups: III. A multiple sequence model

of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341.

Poole, M. S. (1983b). Decision development in small groups: II. A study of multiple sequencesin decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232.

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989a). Decision development in small groups: V. Test of a contin-

gency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549-589.

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989b). Decision development in small groups: IV. A typology of

group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323-356.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior . New York:

Rinehart.

Seers, A., & Woodruf, S. (1997). Temporal pacing in task forces: Group development or dead-

line pressure. Journal of Management, 23, 169-187.

Slater, P. (1966). Microcosm: Structure, psychological and religious evolution in groups. NewYork: John Wiley.

Stock, D., & Thelen, H. A. (1958). Emotional dynamics of group culture. Washington, DC:

National Education Association’s National Training Laboratories.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin,

63, 384-399.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group

& Organization Studies, 2, 419-427.

Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Sydney, Australia:

Allyn and Bacon.

Wheelan, S. A., & Burchill, C. (1999, April). Take teamwork to new heights. Nursing Management , pp. 28-31.

Wheelan, S. A., Murphy, D., Tsumura, E., & Kline, S. F. (1998). Member perceptions of inter-

nal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research, 29, 371-393.

Wheelan, S. A., & Tilin, F. (1999). The relationship between faculty group development and

school productivity. Small Group Research, 30, 59-81.

Worchel, S. (1994). You can go home again: Returning group research to the group context

with an eye on developmental issues. Special Issue: Social cognition in small groups.

Small Group Research, 25, 205-233.

Artemis Chang is a lecturer in the School of Management, Queensland University of

Technology. Her research interests include computer-mediated communication and group

processes, group development, time management and project management, enterprise resource

planning systems, network analysis, and work and family balance.









Julie Duck is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland.

Her current research focuses on group and intergroup processes, especially as they apply to

organizational contexts and to the impact of mass communication on perceptions, attitudes,and behavior.

Prashant Bordia is an associate professor in the School of Management, University of South

Australia. His research interests include group development, rumors in the workplace, knowledge-

sharing processes, and psychological contracts.


Documents

Small Group Research 2006 Chang 327 50